JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Commissioner, FTC, Khunti by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. in Karra P. S. Case No. 59 of 2003 corresponding to G. R. No. 566 of 2003 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to under R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- has been affirmed. 3. This case was admitted on the question of sentence only on 25.10.2015, but this Court has also considered the merits of the case apart from the quantum of sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner had illegally taken money from the villagers whose roof tiles were destroyed by hailstorm. It has been stated that on the direction of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the FIR was instituted. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Karra P. S. Case No. 59 of 2003 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed under Section 406 & 420 of I.P.C. 5. In course of trial, 21 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Lala Munda has stated that the roof of his house was destroyed by hailstorm and rain and for repairing, he was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the Government. He has stated that the amount was given in cheque. He has also stated that the petitioner was given Rs. 2,000/- as he had threatened that otherwise amount of Rs. 6,000/- will be credited in his loan account. He has further stated that an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was never returned by the petitioner. P.W. 2 – Bishu Chik Baraik has stated that he and several persons had received Rs. 6,000/- in cheque from the Government for repairing of broken tiles. He has stated that Rs. 2,000/- was taken by the petitioner and the same was never returned. He has also stated that the amount was given to the petitioner on the threat that if Rs. 2,000/- was not given to him, he will include the amount of Rs. 6,000/- in cheque from the Government for repairing of broken tiles. He has stated that Rs. 2,000/- was taken by the petitioner and the same was never returned. He has also stated that the amount was given to the petitioner on the threat that if Rs. 2,000/- was not given to him, he will include the amount of Rs. 6,000/- in the loan account. The evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 has been supported by P.W. 3 – Sukhnath Chik Baraik, P.W. 4 – Dullu Baraik, P.W. 5 – Sitaram Baraik, P.W. 6 – Sandhya Pahan, P.W. 7 – Debo Munda, P.W. 8 – Shyama Devi, P.W. 9 – Makkhi Baghtain, P.W. 10 – Mahadev Baraik, P.W. 11 – Tipa Pahan, P.W. 12 – Etwa Munda, P.W. 19 – Chuni @ Chhunni Devi, P.W. 20 – Lachhu Ram and P.W. 21 – Jagarnath Munda. Some of these witnesses were duped Rs. 3,000/- and some of them were duped Rs. 2,000/-, but the tenor and manner of the inducement of the informant so far as the aforesaid witnesses are concerned are same and similar barring minor discrepancies with respect to the amount in question. P.W. 13 – Tipa Oraon, P.W. 14 – Karma Munda, P.W. 15 – Boda Munda, P.W. 17 – Arunjay Baraik and P.W. 18 – Babu Ram Baraik did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 16 – Asim Kispotta is the Circle Officer and the informant who had proved the written report marked as Exhibit 1. This witness has instituted the FIR on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. He has stated that the distribution of aid was prior to his joining as Circle Officer, Karra. He has also stated that the allegation of irregularity was inquired by the LRDC. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no documentary evidence which would show that the petitioner had taken various amounts from individual persons. An alternative argument was put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since 2003 and he has also remained in custody for some time and therefore, the period of sentence imposed upon him may be modified suitably. 7. An alternative argument was put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing the rigors of prosecution case since 2003 and he has also remained in custody for some time and therefore, the period of sentence imposed upon him may be modified suitably. 7. On consideration of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that a large number of persons were cheated by the petitioner by giving threat and Rs. 2,000/- from some persons and Rs. 3,000/- from some persons were taken. The large number of victims, most of whom have been examined by the prosecution, have categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner and therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 of I.P.C. appears to be correct and justified. 8. Thus, in view of the overwhelming oral evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution coupled with the fact that the matter was inquired into at the level of LRDC, pursuant to which the FIR was instituted proves beyond doubt about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. In such circumstances, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. The same is hereby sustained. 9. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2003 and has also remained in custody for some time. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone by him. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence.